Heh
Can't help laughing, really.
For three years we've been hearing NOKIA SHOULD MAKE ANDROID LOL and now they have and... it's absolutely dire.
Three years after it announced a switch to Windows Phone, Nokia launched a family of Android-based phones today at Mobile World Congress 2014. Nokia's new X family of mobes... The first three devices revealed today at Mobile World Congress adopt the same strategy Amazon has with Android: use the open-source base and develop …
Your Desire HD was a high end (high priced) phone, not a budget one like these. How do the specs compare to similarly priced Android devices? (And before anyone brings it up, the Moto G is more expensive. On that note, should I rubbish the Moto G? After all, it's no better than my 2 year old Galaxy Nexus. But, my Nexus was a high end phone at the time.) Alternatively, this is a huge jump from the similarly priced Asha devices they replace.
Also a nice baseline from a development point of view - there are loads of 480x320 or even 320x240 256MB RAM phones still out there that develops have to support (unfortunately Google Play doesn't make it easier to block based on RAM or resolution).
And there is a 5" device too (not to mention ppl often seem to whinge about wanting smaller phones), and I thought we all hated the lack of microSD on some phones...
"..MS don't own Nokia yet.."
They owned it when Mr. Elop joined Nokia :)
Keeping that aside, as a human being, why'd they launch a product that looks more likely foot in mouth if they are not supported by the soon to be new masters?
And news from the same day also suggested that they are going to pursue it aggressively:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/24/mwc_2014_new_nokia_android_phones_coming_europe_toikkanen/
They wouldn't replace WinRT and WinPhone with a better alternative, that I can accept though :)
"With no marketshare and no apps, it's not hard to see why they are turning their back on it."
I guess you must have missed that Windows Phone is at over 10% market share in a number of countries now including the UK? Or that it grew nearly 100% in the last year? Or that it now has over 200,000 apps?
"I guess you must have missed that Windows Phone is at over 10% market share"
No, didn't miss that, but everyone knows it's totally untrue. Do you REALLY believe 1 in 10 people own a Window Phone? That's utterly laughable, and quite clearly total bullshit.
2% at best back in the real world. At guess what, when you sell sod-all, it's really easy to double your sales. Chuck a handful in a skip and voilà 100% increase in shipments...
You sir have been sucked in by Microsoft spin.
"Do you REALLY believe 1 in 10 people own a Window Phone?"
Clearly you are of limited education and don't understand that market share relates to a percentage of sales.
I the UK at least it can't be far off in terms of installed base either - loads of people have Windows Phones now - i see lots around the city - they are increasingly replacing Blackberrys for instance.
> Windows Phone grew global market share year on year by 156%!
I'll quote an adjacent message, seemingly from yourself:
"""Clearly you are of limited education and don't understand that market share relates to a percentage of sales."""
Clearly you are of limited education and don't understand that 'market share' is not 'number of units shipped'. The 156% is the increase from 2102Q3 _shipments_ to 2013Q3 _shipments_ and is _not_ the 'grew market share'. The difference is that the whole market grew 40% (from 695m to 990m).
> Actually windows Phone grow market share by 156% last year according to IDC!
You are being highly selective in picking that figure. It is true that there was a rise from 2012Q3 to 2013Q3 in _shipments_ of that percentage, but 2012Q3 was when WP7 was dead ended and WP8 was not yet available.
You also clueless as you do not know the difference between 'shipments' and 'market share'. As the total shipments increased overall by 40% between those quarters then the 'market share' rise was considerably less.
The _actual_ 'grow market share last year' was 46%* from 2% to 3%.
* From 2012's 16m of 695m total to 2013's 33.3m of 990m.
(True) Android is the platform Nokia should have launched 2-3 years ago, not Windows Phone, but they got that badly wrong.
Now they're launching this bastardised platform rather than the real deal: part Android, part Microsoft software, yet incompatible with Android and requiring developers to port their apps, do Nokia never learn?
The company has become a total joke under Elops stewardship, lurching from one bad "burning platform" decision to another - the guy couldn't pick a winner even if there was only one platform option.
And when Microsoft completes the acquisition of Nokia, I would be surprised if this Nokia platform lasts longer than the Kin.
Although since it's not using any of Google's services or closed source apps, they (presumably) won't have to abide to any of Google's licences or conditions. They're using Open Source Android, with Nokia services on top.
It's a shame to see Symbian and Meego go, as well as that nothing came of the rumoured Meltemi, but I think it's good to see something new Android based at the low end, but distinct from Google.
> (True) Android is the platform Nokia should have launched 2-3 years ago, not Windows Phone, but they got that badly wrong
Yeah! Nokia could have been rolling in all that sweet, sweet money everyone makes from Android, just like Motorola and HTC! Right?
>And when Microsoft completes the acquisition of Nokia, I would be surprised if this Nokia platform lasts longer than the Kin.
On that score, I agree with you.
It's not as if Android is even any good on cheapo hardware, or as if this thing cost much less than the Lumia 520 which is, y'know, quite well reviewed.
>> "..Microsoft give Nokia $1 billion.."
> Nokia gave them more than that back in license fees...
If that were the case then the license fee is $30-$35 per phone (approx 30million phones in 2013). Because the agreement ends soon then this would have become an additional direct, unsubsidized, cost. Add the margins and the retail price would have to rise $50 or so. The market share would collapse, especially at the low end.
This Android/Nokia X is obviously a 'Plan B' because even Elop knew that WP8 was unsustainable. High hardware cost because of the limited and fixed range of older SoCs (8.1 does add one newer one), higher software costs when the subsidy ends, failing market share.
No wonder MS had to buy Nokia phone division.
Nokia have already "ported" my apps without me doing a thing.
No porting is required unless there's a dependence on some specific Google thingies. Note this isn't like Blackberry (which was a different OS running some kind of Android VM/emulator), it *is* Android. Different UI, but that's no different to apps I develop on my Nexus running on Samsung Touchwiz or HTC Sense. It's true there is a risk that simply getting developers to release apps on a different site is a hurdle, though I think Nokia have advantages over Amazon - it's much cheaper (1 euro one off fee, versus $99/year), they're starting with an existing base of developers already on Nokia (whether through Symbian or S40 - smaller than Google Play, but better than what Amazon had to start with). It's more appealing from a matter of principle (IIRC Amazon wanted a locked-down device that only worked with Amazon, where as these devices will work with 3rd party sites and sideloading - just not Google Play, because Google don't allow than unless you comply to all their terms - if they released a "normal" Android phone, would they be able to have Nokia and MS services installed all over it?). Of course it isn't going to get anywhere near the numbers of Google Play, but it's marketed at the people currently buying S40/Asha devices.
I also don't get the burning platform thing. Symbian was discontinued, WP isn't. I suppose technically the Asha platform is, but I don't get why people are suddenly loving S40/Asha over Android...
Although I do agree, if they've shown they are capable and willing to use Android to make their own platform, it's a shame they didn't do this 2-3 years ago as the Symbian replacement.
In a month or two Nokia as an MS division would have access to WP for free, presumably. I can only assume that WP sales are so bad in developing markets (i.e. non-existent) that launching a new Android-based platform to avoid paying WP royalties then having MS wipe it out in a month or two is more profitable.
As for the new platform itself. If it's got drop-in replacements for most Google Play Services, as Amazon has, then it'll work, as Amazon does.
I wonder who would be mad enough to hire Flop after this.
It's butt ugly, dire and Nokia is becoming obsessed with Microsofts model of bringing devices to the market that have no clue what market they should be in...Xbone, win phones, windows 8.
Xbone..is it a games machine or an entertainment device because it does neither well
Win Phones..are they actually a competitor or do Microsoft really think that butt ugly UI is going to gain traction combined with the Windows on the tin thing=FAIL
Windows 8...need i say more?
Message to Nokia shareholders, YOU FAILED WITH THE MICROSOFT IDEA
Just get a cheap android and put a free metrocrapUI app on it if you are that desperate to look an utter plank
I found the networking to be choppy on PC, which is probably something to do with not running through XBox Live.
It's good either way, with my preference being sofa, controller, big telly.
Honestly, I'm half-convinced that Titanfall is what'll sell the XBone, much the way Halo sold the original XBox.
This post has been deleted by its author
Just when Samsung are ramping up their efforts to break free from the chocolate factory. Tizen (tizen.org) it seems is the new Android. If they can do it, this would surely be a very good thing given the average consumer's current choice of being locked in to one of Apple, Google or Microsoft.
... and Google knows exactly how long you laughed for, the tone and frequency of your laughter and where you were when you laughed, and is currently adding all the local joke stores and commedy clubs to your targeted advertising profile...
... unless you were over-maniacal about it, in which case you've been added to the GCHQ's "watch" list.
I thought this as well. My best guess this is purely a result of MS's stupid internal competition policy. Given product lead times I suspect these were in progress just before the Nokia sale, and they had some barely relevant Veep in MS who wouldnt discount WinPhone enough to make low end lumia's price effective.
"Elop said that manufacturers who had gone with Android years ago were struggling to maintain a booth presence at the show, because they were unable to differentiate their wares adequately"
"He insisted Nokia will differentiate itself too with build quality, design, reliability and Nokia's HERE and Mix Radio services."
Aren't these slightly contradictory? None of the differentiating items he points out depend on the use of Windows Phone.
The "Landfill" Android phones are called that because they receive no post-sale support from their manufacturers, and are cheaply built with lower-cost components. Both factors seriously shorten their working life.
Nokia, on the other hand excel at making durable phones, even at low prices, and they have a policy of supporting their devices for a long time after sale. (In the markets these phones are aimed at, handsets are bought SIM-free, so the problems of carriers having to sign-off on updates is sidestepped entirely).
As for why this could be different to, say, SonyEricsson, HTC et al... Those other Android licensees didn't have the engineering resources to offer the cloud services that customers expect with their phones now (cloud storage, mail, IM, mapping, app stores, search, music streaming), so they ended up in the no-win position of being vassals of Google. Nokia and Microsoft between them can offer every service that Google does, and that makes it possible for them to use the pure open-source Android as a platform, and supply their own services and systems apps in place of Google's
It's more choice, so it's good overall for customers, and although operators' shops won't carry these, you're bound to see them at your local budget mobile phones and accessories shop. (Although the likes of Tesco Mobile could pick them up).
There is no difference between iPhone, Android, Microsoft and now Nokia. They are all controlled by the USA and in light of the Snowden leaks must be considered to be insecure.
I'm sticking with my dumbphone for a while yet, you fanbios just carry on arguing while getting your data slurped.
… Implying something is always transient?
(I bet that gets manfrommars going?)
So while low cost and maybe not full functionality may be a means to charge lower prices at the present (and for obvious reasons too) in another few years the race to iPhones and mega pricing might come in again?
If so, who will make better profit margins in the immediate short term to medium term?
(Potential ans: those who can meet market demands swiftly, sharply and cost effectively?
Why? Look at low cost phablets, tablets and … ?)
"manufacturers who had gone with Android ... were unable to differentiate their wares adequately"
Yeah well, I suppose by bringing out an utterly awful product you can "differentiate" but it's not exactly the kind of differentiation that will translate into revenue.
Nokia stripped all the Google out of their Android build, guaranteeing it to fail because: PEOPLE *LIKE* GOOGLE SERVICES.
And then they gave Android a Metro-like skin. Ugh. Barf. Retch. Hey Nokia, if people wanted phones with an ugly, clumsy UI and powered by craptastic services like Bing, they'd already be buying Windows Phones.
Elop's $25M bonus depends on him selling Nokia to Microsoft. Step 1 was to utterly trash Nokia so the cost would be acceptable. Step 2 was to turn Nokia into a Microsoft dependency so it would be of no value to anyone else. Step 3 was supposed to be the sale, but Elop was so thorough about step 1 that Bill saw no reason to buy. Elop's master stroke was to threaten to sell Androids. Bill will promptly pay a few billion to close an Android shop.
How can they make that assumption?
Read The Verge hands-on review of the Nokia X - no need for assumptions, they're officially shite.
Quote:
Using the X can be quite frustrating, however, as the entire interface is prone to slow response and a lot of lag. Closing or switching between apps on the X takes far longer than other, even entry-level, smartphones, and browsing the web will quickly test your patience. The third-party apps we saw on the X, such as Facebook, looked as they do on other Android smartphones, but they too suffered from poor performance. Nokia’s choice to combine the functions of home and back into the single back button is confusing, and it’s difficult to predict exactly where in the interface the button will take you when you press it.
25% of Android apps won't work on it (according to Nokrosoft). Which considering it's supposed to be Android suggest that Microsoft are trying their age-old tactic of forking from the inside.
They attempted to destroy Java in the same way and failed, this will fail too. Nobody will buy these when they find out a quarter of apps don't work on it.
If 25% of apps won't work, it's because they use Google-specific APIs that are not open source.
There are two layers of Google Android. The Free Open Source core has basic functionality, and then there are the Google Play APIs, which are closed source. Google has moved more and more functions into the latter, closed source, part of the OS, with every release. Often, the original open-source API for something is deprecated, and a new framework is introduced, but as part of the closed-source Play.
From a Free Software perspective, Google's Android is not any better than Nokia and MS's fork (or Amazon, Nokia and MS's offering on Kindle Fire).
The thing is, apps use those APIs because they do useful things. e.g. facilitate in-app purchases, piracy detection, deliver advertising, integrate with game features like achievements etc. and they're supported by the vast majority of phone devices.
It's very easy to harumph that apps use proprietary APIs for those things, but almost all APIs for those things are proprietary.
Secondly, if an app developer wants to support Nokia's device they'll have to build and maintain two separate branches of the same product and build, package, test and upload two versions of it. This is an odious burden and many apps simply won't bother - or if they do they'll jack up the price Nokia's app store to compensate for the effort.
There is nothing that would have stopped Nokia getting itself certified to ship with the Google apps and services except they chose not to. They could have thrown some value add apps onto the phone (or for free on the app store exclusive to Nokia devices) as a product differentiator. They could have stuck their own store app on the device too if they wanted.
They just chose not to. If they're lucky someone will figure a way to painlessly side load the missing functionality. If not, Nokia will reap what it sows.
In-app freemium apps, DRM, advertising, "achievements" are useful things? :)
I agree that a hurdle is that many won't bother distribute to Nokia Store at all, but for those that do, I don't see why they'd jack up the price - it's extra customers, for relatively very little extra work compared to developing an application or porting to a new platform.
Are the requirements for being certified for Google apps known?
It could be argued the other way - there's nothing stopping Google making their apps available for all Android devices, on other stores (or at least, making it possible to download from the website for sideloading without owning needing to use an Android device that already has Google Play). They just choose not to. Note that (unlike I think the Kindle Fire?), these devices won't be "locked down" devices that only work with Nokia Store, there is already mention of them working with other 3rd party sites. Nothing stopping Google working with that.
I currently enjoy using One Note on my Android Nexus devices. That's not because Google has "certified" itself to MS to use their services, it's because MS did the work to put it on Google's site.
"In-app freemium apps, DRM, advertising, "achievements" are useful things? :)"
In-app purchases aren't just for freemium apps. Consider an app which won't let you buy comics or magazines from within the app. Or an app which is trialware & free but lets people unlock the full functionality for a sum of money. Or a game which features episodic content or extra levels.
DRM is extremely useful if you've sunk months or years into an app and don't want to see it appearing on various piracy websites loaded up with malware.
Advertising is useful for developers who want to offer an app for nothing. Many extremely useful apps are only free because advertising revenue makes it profitable to do so.
Achievements, high score tables etc. are quite obviously desirable in games. The APIs also allow cloud storage which is useful too.
Now there are 3rd party APIs for some of these things but they're just as proprietary as Google's. e.g. Nokia claims to offer APIs for some of this functionality. Clearly they're okay when it's *their* proprietary APIs, just not when it's somebody elses. I also really don't buy the "proprietary" argument in the first place since the app itself is proprietary. It's just designed to work in a particular framework of APIs that the vast majority of handsets support.
It's no good blaming the apps that one handset decides on purpose not to comply with that framework and thinks that offering an analogous but different subset of APIs is a good plan.
@DrXym
"DRM is extremely useful if you've sunk months or years into an app and don't want to see it appearing on various piracy websites loaded up with malware."
Wow. Nearly a full day since your comment supporting DRM being used to prevent piracy and nobody (at the time I started this reply) had downvoted it!
Respect to you! Normally any attempt at putting a positive spin on DRM or anti-piracy measures are only met with howls of derision! I guess the average commentard has finally begun to realise that developers have bills too...
The thing is, apps use those APIs because they do useful things. e.g. facilitate in-app purchases, piracy detection, deliver advertising, integrate with game features like achievements etc. and they're supported by the vast majority of phone devices.
That's fine, but Google don't include them in the Open Source Android. That's Google's decision, not Nokia's. Nokia are providing equivalents that plug into their services instead (as Amazon do for the Kindle Fire); it's not like the functionality isn't going to be there, but the devs will have to access it differently.
It's very easy to harumph that apps use proprietary APIs for those things, but almost all APIs for those things are proprietary.
True, but you're talking about perhaps less than 100 lines of code different between the two versions, and it's code that will be concentrated in maybe one or two methods in one or two classes.
Secondly, if an app developer wants to support Nokia's device they'll have to build and maintain two separate branches of the same product and build, package, test and upload two versions of it.
Java is quite good at hiding this kind of difference from other code. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of any developer who's able to make an app in the first place.
This is an odious burden and many apps simply won't bother - or if they do they'll jack up the price Nokia's app store to compensate for the effort.
"Odious" is taking things a bit far. Unless you're not able to code at all, it's very easy to isolate the differing parts of the codebase (for example, make a generic "make in-app purchase" interface, and two or more implementations, one per store backend); full multiple-backend testing is only then required when that specific code is touched. For minor updates that don't touch those APIs, in-depth test isn't required on every possible device.. or do you think that small devs test their apps on every Android model right now?
There is nothing that would have stopped Nokia getting itself certified to ship with the Google apps and services except they chose not to.
That's not what happened, though. It's well documented that Nokia approached Google in late 2010, but Google's licence terms would have prevented Nokia from using their competitive mapping and music stores - properties that Nokia had invested a lot of money in, and which were (and are) generating good income. Basically, Google's rules for Play are simple: you take it all or you get nothing. You cannot pick and choose from its services: if you want to have the Play Store, you must use Google Maps and gCalendar, etc.
In effect, this is just like when Microsoft insisted that if you wanted to ship Windows 98 on your hardware, you also had to ship Internet Explorer, and couldn't replace it as default browser. Google have taken it further to include more services, but they are using the same lame excuse that MS did: that mapping, browsing, in-app purchase, etc. is now an intrinsic part of the OS, rather than an application library, and thus can't be separated without breaking Android. The existence and success of the Kindle Fire's app market gives lie to this claim.
Whether people want or like Google's services is immaterial. Lots of people also wanted Internet Explorer when they never got to see what the alternatives were like...
"True, but you're talking about perhaps less than 100 lines of code different between the two versions, and it's code that will be concentrated in maybe one or two methods in one or two classes."
Clearly you've never used APIs such as these. The banner ad code might be 100 lines. The licence validation service might be 600 lines (which must be heavily modified, obfuscated, duplicated and smeared around the app so it is difficult to rip out). The cloud / achievements / game scores another 1200. This isn't because Google's APIs are complex but they must handle various network events like connect / disconnect, retry, account signon / off and weird edge cases that occur in phones.
It's quite flippant to say "java is very good at hiding details". Getting it working for a single backend is bad enough but yes I could write abstract it and support different backends. I'm sure I could support Gamecircle (for example) assuming my time was free since that's another full 2 or 3 days of integration and a constant overhead to maintain thereafter (e.g. if I logon to Google's server to add an achievement then I must also logon to Amazon's to do it too).
Aside from that, it takes me a full day to make ready, test, package, sign, tag and deploy a version of my app per store. I know this since in the past I have supported my apps on Playbook, Archos and Amazon stores. Oh how I love how each store insists on different sized banner art and some of them take an inordinately long time to approve apps!
Will I support Nokia's app store too? Nope. I'll assume that Nokia users will sideload Play store and if they don't or can't, then the platform is DOA anyway.
I agree, though also, some of those 25% may be because of dependency on things that aren't yet available on Nokia Store. E.g., some of my apps use Qt, which requires the necessitas library, which it automatically downloads from the device's default site. So it will work as soon as necessitas is available on Nokia Store (they've been good about making it available on many sites, not just Google Play), but when it came to their initial automated testing, it meant those apps failed the compatibility test. So hopefully this figure will drop in future.
They're running an Android fork (from which version of AOSP?) under a heavily modified front end, not supplying the Play store and not supplying the standard set of Google apps.
What the hell is the point in that??? Do they really think that people are happy to buy apps from Nokia's app store? Do they think app developers are happy about yet another app store to build and deploy to?
Perhaps there is a way to side load the google apps and store, but out of the box it means the device is crippled. What a total waste of time for all concerned.
Outside the USA (you know, 95% of the rest of the planet), Nokia was/is still a massive brand and for lots of people getting stuff from the Nokia store is not anything problematic at all.
99% of buyers of entry level Android phone buyers really don't give a flying fuck about Open Source, Google apps or any of that other crap people in here go on endlessly about. They are just buying a phone.
I bought a dual SIM Nokia feature phone the other day (needed a local phone in Oz). Under AUD 60, and works a treat with massive battery life. I have failed to open even one of the feature phone features. I am not alone in not giving a Tinker's about these features, no do I care what OS is running it. It's a phone, it works, I charge it once a week (if that), it is small and easy to carry around, I have stored the 20 phone numbers I need ... end of.
"I suggest you ask Amazon, as they have done exactly the same thing with the Kindle devices."
A slightly different situation since Amazon.com is an extremely popular website that sells products, books, movies, music and apps and can therefore prominently market its device. Go visit it right now and chances are they're pushing the tablet on their front page.
But for all of Amazon's efforts it is still a tiny fraction of the users of Play store and the selection and price of apps on the Amazon app store reflects that.
The screenshots seem to show two SIM-shapes at the top. I wonder, therefore, if the device supports two SIMs? This is a feature that would be useful even in this country (the UK) but seems to only appear on devices for countries like India.
Give me a moderately high spec Android device, easy replacement of the OS (to strip out Google's data slurp), MicroSD, replaceable battery and dual SIMs and I'd be very happy. Not sure these devices would fit the bill though. Especially with the "Windows Phone" veneer. That would have to get removed immediately after unboxing.
That's just crazy talk.
The google employees will continue to pour scorn on these because they're not sending all your data to Google and the F/OSS brigade* will pour scorn on these because they'll assume that they send all your data to Microsoft.
Try it for yourself - mention how you can individually change an app's separate permissions in WP8 so that you withold data from Redmond if you so choose and watch the egg-throwing.
*This makes me very sad because I personally use, love and occasionally contribute to open source software on several platforms. But these people make Stallman look compassionately moderate.
This post has been deleted by its author